(Reuters) - Journalist Bob Woodward on Wednesday criticized Barack Obama's handling of the automatic U.S. budget cuts set to take effect this week, calling the president's decision to hold back on military deployments "madness."

His comments continued what has become a running dispute between Woodward, perhaps the country's best-known print journalist, and the Democratic White House over who is responsible for the across-the-board cuts scheduled to begin on Friday.

Last week, Woodward published an opinion piece in the Washington Post - where he is an associate editor - saying the administration was "wrong" to blame the cuts on Republicans.

That drew retorts from White House press secretary Jay Carney, who in posts on Twitter and later in comments to reporters blamed the budget stalemate on Republican opposition to including increased revenues in any deal to replace the cuts.

The $85 billion across-the-board budget cuts were mandated by Congress and the White House as part of the August 2011 deal to avoid a government default. The reductions are split between defense spending and domestic programs.

.... Dear Mr. Obama ...... Now that there is more unsavory news leaking out about something that originated from the Whitehouse. Before you start warming up your Whitehouse bus to throw your next victim of blame under for something that for some reason ..... you .... again .... and again .... and again .... had no knowledge of ..... May I remind you .... that .... Mr. President ...... YOU ARE THE WHITEHOUSE!!!!

Note the Reuters bias woven subtly into the wording to fool the Low-Information Voter (LIV):

Last week, Woodward published an opinion piece [...] saying the administration was "wrong" to blame the cuts on Republicans.

Putting "wrong" in quotation marks intends to leave an impression that there is something wrong with that word choice on the part of Woodward.

That drew retorts from White House press secretary Jay Carney, who [...] blamed the budget stalemate on Republican opposition to including increased revenues in any deal to replace the cuts.

"Revenues" instead of "taxes". Revenues are good! What's wrong with more income - if you are a business, that's good! So how can those evil Republicans be opposed to "revenues"?

The $85 billion across-the-board budget cuts were mandated by Congress and the White House [...].

... by (a) Congress and (b) the White House - sure doesn't give you the impression that the White House came up with the idea and pushed it onto the Congress.

The LIV gets the message that the Republicans in Congress drove this idea, are poor businessmen by refusing higher income for the government, and now with the help of Bob Woodward are blaming Saint Obama. All under the guise of a neutral, "just the facts Ma'am" news service with no axe to grind.

Finally someone in the media unafraid. The White House has probably been using this Chicago Style intimidation on the media for years. Woodward finally snapped and said “enough”. The White House is acting mad in both senses of the word. Crazy, and angry. Lashing out by releasing illegal criminal aliens, and insanely making absurd military decisions claiming a “crisis” that EVERYONE knows doesn’t exist, and won’t come to pass.

To claim that we have to make the most draconian moves as a result of a “reduction in the amount of additinal spending” is clearly nuts. If every agency can’t find 1% savings by using less paper, cutting excess driving, carpooling, not flying to Virginia to give a 20 minute speech, changing cell phone plans, pushing off computer upgrades, etc etc we are lost forever. It’s like saying in order to cut 1% of a prison budget we should let the mass murderers free. Hello?!? You can’t just use half as many lights during the day to cut the electricity bill? They have lost their marbles and I cannot believe anyone left or right will fall for it. Even the apologists will have a hard time with this one.

The $85 billion across-the-board budget cuts were mandated by Congress and the White House [...].

we all know that “across-th-board budget cuts” are the biggest lie of the day. Handout will not be touched in any budget cuts that are in the future. The Rats would be slapping the hand that gets them elected - over and over and over again.

14
posted on 02/28/2013 4:40:19 AM PST
by Cyclone59
(Obama is like Ron Burgundy - he will read ANYTHING that is on the teleprompter)

The lapdog Rooters is still not telling the whole story. A key part of Woodward's piece is that the sequestration was totally Obama’s idea, and that it included NO tax increases. By blaming the Republicans, and then by moving the goal posts to include tax increases, Obama is not only LYING, he is also acting like an irresponsible, petulant cry baby.

15
posted on 02/28/2013 5:30:26 AM PST
by norwaypinesavage
(Galileo: In science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of one individual)

Where are the budget cutters with their mile long lists of “bridge to nowhere” programs that could be cut. Where are the Stossel types who can rattle off wasteful programs like ice cream flavors. When Obama says the airports will close, someone needs to remind him not to worry, the snail darter & lizard protection programs will not be affected.

These are the counter arguments to Obama’s nonsense. These are the arguments that even the dumbest Lib can appreciate.

Stossel, BTW, attempted to highlite wasteful programs this morning, but his method - a true/false quiz of F&F hosts - came off lame. By presenting both real & fake examples of gov’t waste, he left the viewer with the impression that stories of waste are as likely false as true. The problem is waste, not fake waste or the perception of fake waste.

16
posted on 02/28/2013 6:05:10 AM PST
by Mister Da
(The mark of a wise man is not what he knows, but what he knows he doesn't know!)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.